Unnerving braking experiences; sudden braking increase.

I experienced something a bit unnerving yesterday on a
bike I have been riding a couple years. The bike is a
nifty steel sport frame. The brakes are Ultegra 49 mm
reach with Kool Stop pads. On descents I was waiting a
bit longer before braking at turns, using more braking
force, but still using progressive force, rather than
slamming them. At a later point in the brake
application, the braking force suddenly increased
sharply. This happened more than once. Had not seen
this before, and need more experiments. Any comments on
this sketchy account?

--
Michael Press

Michael,

Just a guess, but by riding on the brakes it made the (rust pad?) Kool
Stops hot.
They expanded and added pressure to brake surface. Then if they got
slightly cocked
when they were hot, soft, and draging pads the rear pads could catch
and jam the wheel.

It would be logical the rears would heat, expand, and grab more since
the front of the pads
would get direct air cooling.

But that's just a guess. Dragging bike brakes seems dangerous.
Are those Salmon color rust pad Kool Stops? That may have been what
happened to Jobst going
down the Alps. Good experience to pass on. So for cooling the pads, the
AL fins wouldnt' do much since furtherst
away from hot pad surface: air scoops need to divert air on the back of
the pad surfaces on the rear end,
top rear half, and bottom rear half of each pad. Interesting puzzle for
an air dam.

I may be way off, but it sounds logical any way.


Thanks

Michael Press wrote:
I experienced something a bit unnerving yesterday on a
bike I have been riding a couple years. The bike is a
nifty steel sport frame. The brakes are Ultegra 49 mm
reach with Kool Stop pads. On descents I was waiting a
bit longer before braking at turns, using more braking
force, but still using progressive force, rather than
slamming them. At a later point in the brake
application, the braking force suddenly increased
sharply. This happened more than once. Had not seen
this before, and need more experiments. Any comments on
this sketchy account?

--
Michael Press

In article
.com
,
"ddog" wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
I experienced something a bit unnerving yesterday on a
bike I have been riding a couple years. The bike is a
nifty steel sport frame. The brakes are Ultegra 49 mm
reach with Kool Stop pads. On descents I was waiting a
bit longer before braking at turns, using more braking
force, but still using progressive force, rather than
slamming them. At a later point in the brake
application, the braking force suddenly increased
sharply. This happened more than once. Had not seen
this before, and need more experiments. Any comments on
this sketchy account?

Just a guess, but by riding on the brakes it made the (rust pad?) Kool
Stops hot.
They expanded and added pressure to brake surface. Then if they got
slightly cocked
when they were hot, soft, and draging pads the rear pads could catch
and jam the wheel.

It would be logical the rears would heat, expand, and grab more since
the front of the pads
would get direct air cooling.

But that's just a guess. Dragging bike brakes seems dangerous.
Are those Salmon color rust pad Kool Stops? That may have been what
happened to Jobst going
down the Alps. Good experience to pass on. So for cooling the pads, the
AL fins wouldnt' do much since furtherst
away from hot pad surface: air scoops need to divert air on the back of
the pad surfaces on the rear end,
top rear half, and bottom rear half of each pad. Interesting puzzle for
an air dam.

I may be way off, but it sounds logical any way.

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
.com
,
"ddog" wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
snip

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

--
Michael Press

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom posting
encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much verbiage,
especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances in the thread
would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and I'm not
flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do it on usenet?

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:26:52 -0800, "Mamba"
wrote:

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom posting
encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much verbiage,
especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances in the thread
would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

Top posting practically guarantees longer messages and wasted
bandwidth, since there is no incentive to trim out unnecessary stuff.

In long threads, or any thread, the proper thing to do is to bottom
post while removing information not needed to understand the post
you're writing.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Does this help?

Mamba wrote:
"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
.com
,
"ddog" wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
snip

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

--
Michael Press

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom
posting encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much
verbiage, especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances
in the thread would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and
I'm not flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do
it on usenet?

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:47:25 -0800, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Does this help?

You're such a dick. Stuff like that was funny in grade school.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article ,
"Bill Sornson" wrote:

Does this help?

Mamba wrote:
"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
.com
,
"ddog" wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
snip

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom
posting encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much
verbiage, especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances
in the thread would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and
I'm not flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do
it on usenet?

You can read about it here.

http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm

--
Michael Press

In article ,
"Bill Sornson" wrote:

Does this help?

Yes, I finally get it. Took me a while.

Mamba wrote:
"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
.com
,
"ddog" wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
snip

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom
posting encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much
verbiage, especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances
in the thread would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and
I'm not flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do
it on usenet?

--
Michael Press

.com
"ddog" wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
snip

"Michael Press" wrote
Do not top post. I fixed it for you.
In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

Mamba wrote:
I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom posting
encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much verbiage,
especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances in the thread
would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and I'm not
flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do it on usenet?

Secondly, it is possible to edit or 'snip' quoted material to enhance
readability while retaining the prior writer's point. (It's also
possible to chop up another's words into a twisted version unlike his
intent but that's another topic)

..backwards running is conversation of flow the if as, oddly reads
posting Top .annoying posting top find ,me including ,people Some

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971